Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA profiling

no one of any intelligence is going to be persuaded by bluster, so i'm looking forward to some good faith discussion/ debate

treehorn,

I have posted at least four substantive comments on some of the problems of the DNA evidence in this case over the last several days. Among them is one dealing with the lack of release of the electronic data files and their utility in assessing the DNA profiling in this case. I have said before that even those convinced of guilt should ask for the release of the files (perhaps especially those convinced of guilt). Please feel free to comment, and I hope that I may urge you to provide citations where appropriate without inciting agitation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We've been over this many times already. What specific moles do you want to pop up again? There is no evidence of a staged break-in that we have not already dealt with, and no reasoning for a staged break-in from Massei that is not laughable.

I'm sorry, I must of missed the part where you "dealt" with the staged break-in. Can you recap?

It strains credulity that you have forgotten or never heard of the concept of contamination in the laboratory. Yet what alternative is there, except that you are playing dumb just to waste our time?

Great, so are we throwing all Rudy's forensic evidence out then?

 

[Mary_H]

i took it that you were asking people to speculate on scenarios that might have given AK cause/reason to be carrying a big knife in her bag

I don't know where you got that. Amanda didn't carry a big knife in her bag.

PS "slander" is something you say, "libel" something you publish (post)

I will keep that in mind; thanks for the tip.

i've done neither because i am only offering an opinion

(i'm not representing an opinion, or lie, as though it were an objective fact)

Why are you offering an opinion based on rumors or falsehoods? Again, I ask, what is your point?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It's a good question for everyone to answer

What has this got to do with the post of mine you quoted?

But I must admit, you are pretty good because you have somehow concluded that I have made up my mind one way or other. Oh, and your last sentence mystifies me.

lionking,

Last December you provided a link which (with some additional searching) led me to the case of Farah. I was giving you thanks, but it was unrelated to the matter at hand. BTW, two of the cases of contamination about which I have written come from Australia, but I assure you that I am not anti-Australian.

You posed this question only to those who lean toward innocence a few months ago. Then and now I knew that it did not indicate with certainty what your position was, although it is suggestive. However, it's a good question for anyone, and I have already answered it myself. I am asking it now because when I asked it before, the many comments were moved to AAH, and I was afraid you had not seen it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think the explanation Fulcanelli agrees is as good as any is worth to be brought up in its' entirety. It's valuable as a comic relief and also as an illustration of farcical reasoning chains riddling Massei motivation:

Great, keep pushing how ridiculous it is. You may tempt fate and the appeal court may just share your view in which case, Amanda and Raffaele will be judged to have committed a PREMEDITATED crime and it will bye bye mitigation and hello 30 years or a life sentence.

Massei did your girl a favour, he threw her a bone. But keep on biting the hand that feeds you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They were watching Naruto in a flat on Corso Garibaldi.

No...they weren't. Two courts have already agreed on that.

 

[Mary_H]

Why would a lawyer of Rafi's- interested in excupating his client- advise him to write blatant falsehoods which are easily disproved and make him look that much more guilty?
Really it makes no sense.

When you put it that way, you're right, it makes no sense. But when you understand that the phrase, "in the context of" does not mean the same thing as the phrase, "as a result of," then the meaning becomes more clear.

 

[Fulcanelli]

All of the articles coauthored by Dr. Hampikian concern research into DNA of one form or another. There are two articles, one from 2009 and the other from 2010 that are more directly concerned with forensics. Note that the 2009 article is in the journal Science, one of the most prestigious science journals in the world.

Moreover, his home page lists other professional qualifications.

Let's see Dr. Stefanoni's so that we can compare.

My Doctor's better then your Doctor? Are we in the playground now?

 

[treehorn]

I know -- right? Why would Amanda carry a butcher knife with her if she wasn't even afraid?

THIS is the reason i mentioned the rumor about the UW "rape prank" (knife = prop)


are you having trouble focusing this morning?

must have been a good weekend ;-)

 

[Mary_H]

THIS is the reason i mentioned the rumor about the UW "rape prank" (knife = prop)

are you having trouble focusing this morning?

must have been a good weekend ;-)

I know -- nothing but parties, parties, parties. Rock-throwing ones in the U District, especially. AWESOME.

I thought loverofzion and I were engaged in an exhange about Judge Massei's contention in the motivations that Amanda carried a large, sharp, kitchen knife in her cloth bag. loverofzion stated, "And of course there was never any mention of fears for her safety; she was used to walking to and from work at night without ever having mentioned feeling frightened."

My intention was to agree with l-o-v that there was no reason to believe Amanda would have done such a thing.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The convicted Mignini also has a history of imprisoning and brutally interrogating innocent people. He has also been suspicious of everyday objects as satanic. From "The Monster of Florence" a doorstop became “an esoteric object used to communicate between this world and the infernal regions.” He boldly stated that in court.

According to the search utility of this forum, Mignini's obsession with the doorstop has not been discussed. I would think anyone researching the prosecution of Amanda Knox would explore the lead persecutor.

Also, I would find it interesting to know how many of the posters here have read "The Monster of Florence" by Mario Spezi and Douglas Preston. It is non-fiction, and reading it would be most appropriate to understand what was going on in Perugia before Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox arrived.

No he doesn't, he has never imprisoned anyone. A prosecutor can't imprison anyone, only a court judge can imprison people.

As for the "Monster of Florence" it's not worth the paper it's written on. And non-fiction does not mean "true".

Brutally interrogating people? Who has Mr Mignini ever brutalised or assaulted? and what were their injuries?

 

[Machiavelli]

For an example of a necessary bit of the theory, the prosecution needs to prove that Raffaele and Amanda were not at home watching Naruto when Meredith was murdered. (They can't - game over). They need to prove that there was a staged break-in, because if Rudy broke in then the whole prosecution story about a sex party gone wrong goes up in flames. (Oops, game over again). If a necessary part of the story is susceptible to reasonable doubt, then the whole story is susceptible to reasonable doubt.

Absolutely not.
One possible logical method to reach proof beyond reasonable doubt is to assume that if just one of the aspects is proven beyd reasnable doubt. If for example, only one element like the bathmat print is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt to be not copatible with Rudy and compatible with sollecito, then no further degree of certainity is needed for the other elements in order to affirm guilt.
So it is quite the opposite: not all necessary elements have to be proven, it is enough if only one is proven. Because guilt is not a theory, there may not be "necessary" elements: to affirm guilt, it is enough that the impossibility of innocence is shown. It is important to understand the subtle difference between guilt and a theory of guilt.

There is however another logical method of reasoning: you can directly disprove innocence. If you show that theories required for innocence don't work, you will serve the same purpose of having all necessary elements proven. For example, if you show that Rudy cannot produce that evidence alone, this would work again as a proof that integrates the resto of evidence.

There is a third method (not exluding the other two): a probabilistic assessmnt. You can show that requirements to disprove circumstantial evidence are too many, too unlikely. You can show that the elements in favour of guilt are too many and too grave beyond a reasonable probability to be there by chance.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I addressed this subject yesterday, when I wrote "Mark Waterbury thinks the police knew that Rudy was the killer, and that is why they went looking for a large kitchen knife instead of one of the knives from Raffaele's collection (which would make more sense). Remember, Rudy was caught with a large kitchen knife at one of his previous break-ins."

Who cares what Mark Waterbury thinks?

Rudy was found to have a knife in his bag which he'd taken from the kitchen, so obviously he wasn't walking around carrying a knife or he wouldn't have had to take the knife from the kitchen. And since it was in his bag he he was hardly carrying it on his person.

I can be said to be in possession of a large knife...I have one in my kitchen. Doesn't make me a murderer. Do you have knives, large or otherwise, in your kitchen? Does that make you a murderer?

Raffaele was the one known to walk around with a knife on him at all times. Have you seen them?:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=240

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
The fact that he is the only person whose evidence shows he was at the crime scene while a murder took place.

Sure, because he aided the victim. That's going to leave a lot of evidence...as it did.

This is surprising to me. Is it really the position of those that believe that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty that Rudy "aided" Meredith? Those that believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele are quite often accused of a lack of respect for Meredith's memory. I find the concept of stating Rudy helped Meredith a horrible thing to say in light of the fact that he sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Haven't we spent the last few pages whacking those moles again?

Yeah, but you just keep missing the target...and those be rather feisty moles. They ain't going anywhere

 

[RoseMontague]

Who cares what Mark Waterbury thinks?

I do and many others as well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a very interesting issue, especially since the only alternative theory I have seen to the theory that the police were deliberately seeking to frame Raffaele and Amanda is the risible official story that "policeman's intuition" led them directly to the murder weapon and led them to scrutinise it past the tolerances of their lab equipment to prove it was the murder weapon. It's a very strange way for an investigation to proceed, and looks a lot like they knew what the result was going to be in advance.

????

They just opened the kitchen drawer...how hard can that be? And it didn't require much intuition, it was the only potential murder weapon in the drawer. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes.

 

[treehorn]

The definitions for duress describe it as forcible restraint, confinement or imprisonment. You're talking about physical torture. I can't imagine that anyone who is locked up against his will is not suffering from duress, and Raffaele expresses his emotional distress quite clearly in his diary.

restraint and confinement?

your liberty is 'restrained' when you are pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint, dear Mary

if you don't think you are 'confined', try driving away before you're told to

how would you have police conduct interrogations of people 'suspected' of murder?

have you ever seen a police interrogation?

suspects are often given the option: talk to us or we'll arrest you and play it that way - up to you, pal

do you think police should be limited to chats about the weather over tea and cookies?

do you think they should just call the suspect's mom down to the station and ask her if her son is a good boy, and if she says, "Yes!" just let him go and call it a day?

where are these "definitions" of duress you are referring to? do you have a link?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If in the future Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are found innocent based on new evidence, which is not unheard of in Mignini cases, could it be said that the police actually hampered the investigation by focusing incorrectly on Amanda Knox, causing the internalized false confession?

Really, in how many and what other cases prosecuted by Mignini has new evidence arrived that have freed the people after they have been tried in a the court of Asizze and found guilty?

 

[lionking]

As for the "Monster of Florence" it's not worth the paper it's written on. And non-fiction does not mean "true".

I've read the "Monster of Florence", and Mignini is not shown in a good light, to say the least (not that this has any direct bearing on this case though). Are there other books that you know of refuting Preston's position?